Michael Lerner fears ridicule, with good reason. His "politics of meaning" is a farrago of nonsense, one absurd assertion tumbling over another. But we dare not laugh too much: this man is dangerous.
N. Scott Arnold's outstanding book makes a vital contribution to the debate over socialism; but Arnold has in part misconceived his own achievement.
One school of thought—Public Choice—says that statesmen can't exist in a democracy. Politics consists of vote trading, logrolling, rent seeking, and legislated looting. Politicians buy and sell favors, lobbyists act as middlemen, and the public gets fleeced. It can be no other way, say these theorists.
In the welfare debates, Congress spared what is perhaps the most objectionable part of the welfare state, cash subsidies for illegitimate children. The opponents had committed a terrible error early in the debate. They granted the first philosophical assumption of the program's supporters: that we all should take responsibility for America's children. But should we?
The whole gay rights debate has, by now, gotten so tiresome that most Americans, even liberals, wish the "love that dare not speak its name" would shut up. But the gay lobby has plenty of bucks, a narrow focus, and is easily offended, a combination that keeps candidate Clinton hopping.
If it had the will, Congress could kill the redistributionist monster, the Welfare State, that's consumed at least $5 trillion in wealth since the Great Society. How? Cut anywhere and everywhere, abolish whole agencies, and return the $350 billion saved from next year's spending to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut of the same size.
The first part of Jeffrey Friedman's piece, an account of the stages in the intellectual evolution of Critical Review, led me to have hope for him and his journal.
Richard Epstein's excellent book is packed full of arguments which continually engage the reader, even if they do not always compel assent. He constructs a powerful case for a free-market social order, with a strictly limited state.
The heart of Samuel Francis's brilliant criticism of contemporary American conservatism is found in his essay "The Other Side of Modernism", included in the present collection.
Just a few years ago we had a bicentennial celebration of the Constitution. Republicanism and federalism, the two most salient features of the Constitution, were never mentioned. Instead we had a glorification of multiculturalism and the central state.
